The unconstitutional argument could be applied to the president. It was only enacted after FDR. Term limits are necessary to keep the same figures from winning. If you agree with the same guy representing your district for 40 years that's because you're his supporter. You're not supporting the voice of your district. If you want the same party in charge you should vote for new members of your party. Supporting no term limits advances the interests of families like the Kennedy's.
Please name one candidate...just one...in the history of this country who supported his district, everyone in his district, with ideology not entering the picture at all.
You pointed out earlier that the Revolution was fought so we could get away from family dynasties, it was actually taxation without representation but let's go with your interpretation, I assume you mean that families without popular support shouldn't be able to impose themselves on the people. Then you make the argument that people who can garner large amounts of support from the people over a long period of time shouldn't be able to serve those people in public office. Your take on this seems to me to be inconsistent.